A list of discussion questions about investigations of communists and Rockefeller Foundation responsibility.
Number of Image Pages:
1 (109,122 Bytes)
1951-08-31 (August 31, 1951)
[Fahs, Charles Burton]
Reproduced with permission of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):
Postwar Work and Retirement, 1945-1956
Box Number: 7
Folder Number: 14
Questions For Discussion With CIB
1. Considering only the U.S. for the moment, is an RF officer responsible for knowing whether the organization for which aid
is recommended is on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations? Would such listing require declination?
2. If the organization in question is not now on the Attorney General's list, is the recommending officer responsible
for a judgment as to whether it is likely to be declared subversive at a later date, e.g. because of obvious communist control
or because of a degree of infiltration which presents a substantial risk of communist manipulation?
3. In the case of aid for a project under the direction of an individual to be assisted through an otherwise reputable institution,
e.g. a professor at a university such as Columbia, is the recommending officer responsible for ascertaining whether the individual
in question has affiliations with subversive organizations according to the public record? In the case of individuals as in
the case of organizations, what is the proper officer attitude towards borderline cases? How many organizations declared "subversive"
does a man have to have been member of to be ineligible for support?
4. If the officers have any of the above responsibilities, what steps should
they take to secure the necessary information on which to make decisions?
How fully must they consult official sources? Unofficial sources? Should the opinion of the staff of the McCarran Committee
be sought? The files of
Counterattack? Anti-communists such as Budenz, William Henry Chamberlin, Eugene Lyon, or Kravchenko? Is each division responsible
for developing its sources of information, or should the RF have in Central Administration an
officer responsible for maintaining files and liaison on security matters?
5. Can we properly affirm that our past procedures have been adequate? If not, should new procedures be adopted? If new procedures
are to be adopted,
should this fact be reported to the McCarran Conmittee or or its staff?
6 .How should these same queries be applied to our foreign operations?
7. In all of this, how can the maintenance of the confidence of the public and the government best be reconciled with the
maintenance of the independence of government, which is essential to the RF's pattern of operation, and maintenance of
the responsibility of the Trustees to decide what they believe to be in the interest of the well-being of mankind throughout